This model eventually crapped out on me and I had to get repaired. The front element can go loose easily. Another weakness of this model is it won't AF on my D5000.

For web ready output 2.5 megapixels is "enough", for 8×10's output 6 megapixel should be enough. For double truck's 12 megapixels is "enough" That's mathematically dictated by printer output and our vision systems.

However, if a scene you are shooting has relatively flat contrast. Or if you are going to be taking an HDR photo and the scene is still (so multiple exposures and time is not of importance). Then I'd take the megapixels over the dynamic range and high ISO also. It's also important to remember the following two caveats:

1) To double the resolution, you need to quadruple the number of megapixel. The amount the megapixels variance between manufacturers is way to small to mean resolution has a noticeble difference outside pixel peeping.

2) On the other hand, the increased dynamic range and high ISO performance is also usually not very noticeable until you reach the pixel peeping stage.

The net result is that if you shoot Canon, be happy. You're not giving as much as you think in order to get the extra megapixels.

A previous article I wrote explains how the most common noise is affected by digitization. The general gist of it is it is correct that in the highlights region, noise levels will span multiple digitization bins and thus, for the most part, are "wasted." But in the shadows, this is not the case. In fact, many cameras actually save lossy "compressed" RAW files that do a mapping in order to contain this that throw out data (which would be under shot noise) in the highlights but preserve 100% of the data in the low bits. This may turn a 16-bit raw image down to a 12-bit (Nikon D70) or 8-bit (Leica M8) image! But comparing these, not seeing noise, and stating there is a "fallacy" in claims of high bit processing just because the final file is less than 8-bits is improper, since these systems work manipulate the image in the high bit space (16-bit or larger) before downsampling the image down to the final file. (The same mistake follows why for years Ken Rockwell incorrectly recommended slide scanning over digital cameras less than hundreds of megapixel—slide scanners scan in very large bit depth… and recommended that RAW was a "waste" over JPEG—incorrectly understanding that JPEG compression introduces both artifacts and bakes in stuff in a manner that is not as lossless as a lossy RAW compression with respect to noise).

As for selection bias, I point out specifically in the mouseover how a previous test used totally different criteria to hype Leica lenses and razz Nikon camera bodies.

I've already, in previous articles, pointed to many inaccuracies he has had (esp. concerning on how "film has higher resolution than digital" and "JPEG vs. RAW" in his old articles).